GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-15-2012, 10:11   #26
sr556m9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremy_K View Post
Some of my worst conversations have been with fellow gun owners, namely hunters. They ask "why do you need high cap mags"? "Why do you need an assault rifle"? Those are meant for one thing only, killing. They get real quiet when I ask them "why do you need a pump shotgun"? Why do you need a gun period? The Indians hunted with bow an arrow. Cavemen hunted with spears and rocks. I'm not knocking hunters as I am an avid hunter. I just choose to have a variety of different types of firearms besides your stereotypical hunting arms. Sometimes we are our own worst enemy.
Same here. I love hunting, but I am sick and tired of the "hunter mentality" when it comes to gun ownership. I refer to these people as "Gun Owner Light." They fail to see the big picture.

A good way I've found to shut up antis is to just tell them "Come get em" They have no rebuttal for that haha
sr556m9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2012, 12:08   #27
John Rambo
Raven
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tampa, Fl.
Posts: 8,038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Debunk Brady View Post
Every time I have a discussion with an anti, I go browsing the internet for statistics that I vaguely remember. Usually when I find them they have no sources, which detracts from credibility.

Accordingly, I compiled a list of statistics WITH SOURCES and tried to put it into a reader-friendly format. If you ever have a discussion with an anti, this list might help you.
Latest one had her boyfriend's friend or something shot and killed by a friend, something crazy like that. Not sure if she saw it or not. Guns throw her into flight or fight mode. Been hanging around her more and more, finally got to the point where Sunday, she had to plug her phone in. She reached down over me next to her bed where I had put my gun on the ground next to my phone in the charger, and hooked hers up. No real reaction to the gun. I'd call that progress.

Its not about facts with anti-gunners, because their reasoning is not based in logic. Its about showing them that responsible, calm, NORMAL people own and carry guns. That doesn't mean you go on some dumbass open carry crusade or try to sit them down and make them uncomfortable with a bunch of talk about guns. No, all that does is drive them farther away from guns. It means you show them that people, very nice and friendly people, legally carry and don't pose a danger to them. Eventually they just get used to it.

Last edited by John Rambo; 08-15-2012 at 12:08..
John Rambo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2012, 18:45   #28
frizz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,670
General comment...

When you talk to and anti, being combative and aggressive is not the way to go. Be polite and calm even if they aren't. If they start getting agitated, don't respond in kind.

It is helpful to say that you understand their concerns... We all agree with that mass shooters are awful and are frightening, and that establishes common ground.

You can counter by pointing out that a home invasion is also frightening, and that the cops do not have the ability to respond in time.


If you are polite and reasoned, you have a fighting chance of winning someone, and a very good chance of planting our counter-position that gives them pause.

What you have the best shot at is showing an anti that a gun owner can be a nice person. That matters a lot.
frizz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2012, 19:20   #29
ConcealedG23
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: The Evergreen State
Posts: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by frizz View Post
If you are polite and reasoned, you have a fighting chance of winning someone, and a very good chance of planting our counter-position that gives them pause.

What you have the best shot at is showing an anti that a gun owner can be a nice person. That matters a lot.
I really believe this to be true. This whole gun/anti-gun thing boils down to perception. If you can show them that you are reasonable and have sound logic that backs your perception, the seed can be planted. If you are perceived as an unreasonable person unwilling to consider their point of view and find common ground, they will listen to little to nothing that you say.

D
ConcealedG23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2012, 01:12   #30
brokenprism
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 263
This is an excellent historical overview to gun control, it's motives, and its effects.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0694e.asp
brokenprism is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2012, 11:18   #31
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConcealedG23 View Post
I really believe this to be true. This whole gun/anti-gun thing boils down to perception. If you can show them that you are reasonable and have sound logic that backs your perception, the seed can be planted. If you are perceived as an unreasonable person unwilling to consider their point of view and find common ground, they will listen to little to nothing that you say.

D
It's obvious you have not had many debates with "TRUE" anti gunners. Logic and fact mean nothing to them. They run on pure emotion. They are not interested in stopping crime (Gun control only increases crime. Proven fact!). There only interest is disarming the common man.
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.

Last edited by Jerry; 08-26-2012 at 11:20..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2012, 12:55   #32
John Rambo
Raven
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tampa, Fl.
Posts: 8,038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
It's obvious you have not had many debates with "TRUE" anti gunners. Logic and fact mean nothing to them. They run on pure emotion. They are not interested in stopping crime (Gun control only increases crime. Proven fact!). There only interest is disarming the common man.
That accounts for an incredibly small percentage of antis, mostly reserved for politicans and talking heads who get rich off of preaching fear.

For the average anti, it boils down to that one word. FEAR. Real and uncontrollable FEAR. You're right, there is no logic or fact, its nothing but fear. The only way to change their stance is to make them more comfortable. And leading with, "You just want to disarm everyone!" doesn't do that.
John Rambo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2012, 13:53   #33
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Rambo View Post
That accounts for an incredibly small percentage of antis, mostly reserved for politicans and talking heads who get rich off of preaching fear.

For the average anti, it boils down to that one word. FEAR. Real and uncontrollable FEAR. You're right, there is no logic or fact, its nothing but fear. The only way to change their stance is to make them more comfortable. And leading with, "You just want to disarm everyone!" doesn't do that.
I grewup in New Orleans. There is a large majority that fall into the "fear" category. Most large cities have them. They have been so indoctrinated by the police brass and TV media it's all btt impossible to brake through illogical fear. It makes no difference how one startsa conversation.
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2012, 16:28   #34
sbhaven
Senior Member
 
sbhaven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Constitution State
Posts: 4,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Rambo View Post
That accounts for an incredibly small percentage of antis, mostly reserved for politicans and talking heads who get rich off of preaching fear.

For the average anti, it boils down to that one word. FEAR. Real and uncontrollable FEAR. You're right, there is no logic or fact, its nothing but fear. The only way to change their stance is to make them more comfortable. And leading with, "You just want to disarm everyone!" doesn't do that.
Fear is an emotion.

Almost all anti's I've met over the years are aptly described in the link I posted earlier in this thread. For almost all of them its their emotions that drive their negative view of firearms and those who posses (outside of law enforcement and soldiers) them.
__________________
Currently hiding behind enemy lines in a Blue State.

Last edited by sbhaven; 08-26-2012 at 16:30..
sbhaven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2012, 16:12   #35
Merlin40
Merlin40
 
Merlin40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Broken Arrow, Oklahoma
Posts: 138
Blog Entries: 1
I can't remember where I saw this, and I didn't write it. But it really hit home for me, as well as some of my anti-gun friends. The logic is almost impossible to argue with.

1) Get a steak from the fridge.
2) Get a sharp knife from your drawer.
3) Call 911, and start stabbing the steak.
4) Continue stabbing the steak, until help arrives.

5) Imagine that steak is one of your children or wife.

Think this can't happen? It's the primary reason I carry inside my home, and why I do not depend on 911 as my primary source of protection. JM2CW
Merlin40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2012, 12:08   #36
Gen4 Fan
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by eightycubes View Post
Some great points Panzerfaust. I've printed copies to pass along to friends. Thank you.
How can you be from TN and know who Ghoulardi is?

I love it, you Purple Knif.
Gen4 Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 12:35   #37
Devans0
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Iowa
Posts: 102
I could use some research help on this one. One argument that gets a lot of play is that certain countries have virtually no gun violence because they have banned guns. (The usual mentions are England, Australia, and Japan.) I notice that each of these countries are islands. Our permeable borders for drug shipments says to me that a gun prohibition will mean that guns will come in by the same ways. Mexico has very tough gun laws, but their death toll dwarfs our random-nut violence.

Discussion?

Last edited by Devans0; 12-30-2012 at 12:36..
Devans0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 17:53   #38
Grayson
Senior Member
 
Grayson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,002


Devans0 - It's always good to point out that our own freakin' BATFE put a LOT of guns in bloodthirsty criminals' hands Mexico, and there's not one guarantee that those guns or criminals will STAY in Mexico...!!!

Someone posted that eventually we'll be reduced to lever actions and revolvers while all the criminals are packing black-market Glocks and ARs and AKs. Would be a bitter irony if those black market rifles were provided by our own government!
__________________
GRNC. NRA, GOA Life
Keep doing 2A activism - each one of us is carrying at least 20 lazy gun owners that can't be bothered to!
POPVOX and Congress-dot-org make it SUPER EASY!

Call the Senate on Bloomberg's dime: 855-440-4800
Grayson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 06:32   #39
leeward419
Senior Member
 
leeward419's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: 43.12 / 77.67
Posts: 716
Send a message via ICQ to leeward419
15,000 people each year are murdered, 926,000 defend themselves with a firearem (FBI, LOTT et al)

15,000 innocent citizens are killed by drunk drivers each year, zero defensive uses of automobile....henceforth...in the interest of public safety in preventing "CAR" violence...you may not drive your car on Friday or Saturday night....without background ck...no traffic or moving violations or you will be disqualified...then you MAY be granted a special license for friday and saturday night....it is 300 dollars, you will need to install fuel tank limiter that will limit the number of gallons in your fuel tank so when you do drive drunk...the damage you do will be limited
if you dont agree with this maybe you should clean up the bood and guts of the next victim,
you hate kids etc
__________________
Glock Certified Armorer

Last edited by leeward419; 01-27-2013 at 06:34..
leeward419 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2013, 06:20   #40
Merlin40
Merlin40
 
Merlin40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Broken Arrow, Oklahoma
Posts: 138
Blog Entries: 1
A Re-post

I have used this in the past, when talking to the anti-gun crowd. (including my close-minded "entitled" brother).:

1. Get a steak from the fridge.
2. Get a steak knife from the drawer.
3. Call 911, and start stabbing the steak.
4. Continue stabbing steak until help arrives.
5. Look at steak.

That steak, is YOU, or one of your loved ones.

This scenario, usually shuts them up.

Last edited by Merlin40; 04-25-2013 at 06:25..
Merlin40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2013, 06:37   #41
Merlin40
Merlin40
 
Merlin40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Broken Arrow, Oklahoma
Posts: 138
Blog Entries: 1
I talk to my brother on a weekly basis. He's a close-minded guy....He knows I have several weapons. He asked me "what kind of "twisted bastard", would have 5,000 rounds of ammo in his home"? (laughing as I type this). He calls me paranoid. I use the word, "prepared". I've asked him to come to GT, and read a little, to get better informed. THAT won't happen. LOL. After the recent shooting in Sandy Hook, he called me, and actually asked what kind of weapon he should buy. He doesn't want one of those "evil black rifles". Not much I can do, to ever convince him of my mindset, and why I feel as I do. He says I have "military training" (20+years in USN), and that I'm a "dangerous man". My home, is also, the first place he'd come, when SHTF. What else can I say?
Merlin40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 22:04   #42
G23Charlie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3
Glen Beck just came out with a new book titled Control.Only Ten dollars.This has plenty of good imformation.Barnes and Noble.
G23Charlie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 22:23   #43
janice6
Platinum Membership
NRA
 
janice6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: minnesota
Posts: 17,281


Last but not least, from that great statesman of the 20th century:


“Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.”
Joseph Stalin
__________________
janice6

"Peace is that brief, glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading". Anonymous

Earp: Not everyone who knows you hates you.
DOC: I know it ain't always easy bein' my friend....but I'll BE THERE when you need me.
janice6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 07:38   #44
BobPistol
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 281
I will add the following argument against antis.

"If you blame guns for the violence and want to ban 'assault weapons' - is it OK for police to have them?"

The answer will likely be "Of course, they have to deal with armed criminals who are trying to hurt people"

My answer is "Then why shouldn't a law-abiding citizen have the same right? We also have to deal with armed criminals who are trying to hurt our families and children too. Are you saying that if you work for the government, that gives you the ability to have more human rights than those who don't work for the government?"
BobPistol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2013, 12:44   #45
Hej Hej
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Chesterfield, MO.
Posts: 545
Quote:
Originally Posted by squirreld View Post
Thanks....great info......
__________________
“I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend.”
J.R.R. Tolkien, The Two Towers

G19 Gen4; Llama .22LR; Astra .380 ACP
Hej Hej is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2013, 12:52   #46
Hej Hej
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Chesterfield, MO.
Posts: 545
Quote:
Originally Posted by frizz View Post
General comment...

When you talk to and anti, being combative and aggressive is not the way to go. Be polite and calm even if they aren't. If they start getting agitated, don't respond in kind.

It is helpful to say that you understand their concerns... We all agree with that mass shooters are awful and are frightening, and that establishes common ground.

You can counter by pointing out that a home invasion is also frightening, and that the cops do not have the ability to respond in time.


If you are polite and reasoned, you have a fighting chance of winning someone, and a very good chance of planting our counter-position that gives them pause.

What you have the best shot at is showing an anti that a gun owner can be a nice person. That matters a lot.
Good points...thanks.
__________________
“I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend.”
J.R.R. Tolkien, The Two Towers

G19 Gen4; Llama .22LR; Astra .380 ACP
Hej Hej is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2013, 01:11   #47
Lisbeth
Imagine
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: gunshine state
Posts: 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panzerfaust View Post
Read "A Nation of Cowards" by Jeff Snyder. This book will arm you with some of the nastiest arguments the world has ever seen for how gun prohibitionists (I love that term, thanks, by the way) are wrong and be able to back it up with irrefutable proof without all the statistics.

Behold, the wisdom of John Ross. Consider these points very seriously, and it will cripple most arguments about gun kontrol. The rest can be extrapolated on.

Don't let them talk you in circles.

One of the biggest mistakes that freedom advocates make is we often fail to take the moral high ground on freedom issues, and we let our enemies define the terms. This is a huge mistake. Never forget: We are in the right on this issue. We are on the side of the Founding Fathers. They are on the side of Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, and every other leader of an oppressive, totalitarian regime.
Let me give some common examples I've often heard when Second Amendment advocates debate gun control supporters:






THEY SAY: "We'd be better off if no one had guns."
WE SAY: "You can never succeed at that, criminals will always get guns." (FLAW: the implication here is that if you could succeed at eliminating all guns, it would be a reasonable plan.)

WE SHOULD SAY: "So, you want to institute a system where the weak and elderly are at the mercy of the strong, the lone are at the mercy of the gang. You want to give violent criminals a government guarantee that citizens are disarmed. Sorry, that's unacceptable. Better we should require every citizen to carry a gun."

THEY SAY: "Those assault rifles have no sporting purpose. You don't need a 30-round magazine for hunting deer--they're only for killing people."

WE SAY: "I compete in DCM High Power with my AR-15. You need a large-capacity magazine for their course of fire. My SKS is a fine deer rifle, and I've never done anything to give my government reason not to trust me blah blah blah." (FLAW: You have implicitly conceded that it is OK to ban any gun with no sporting use. And eventually they can replace your sporting arms with arcade-game substitutes.)

WE SHOULD SAY: "Your claim that 'they're only for killing people' is imprecise. A gas chamber or electric chair is designed for killing people, and these devices obviously serve different functions than guns. To be precise, a high-capacity, military-type rifle or handgun is designed for conflict. When I need to protect myself and my freedom, I want the most reliable, most durable, highest-capacity weapon possible. The only thing hunting and target shooting have to do with freedom is that they're good practice."

THEY SAY: "If we pass this License-To-Carry law, it will be like the Wild West, with shootouts all the time for fender-benders, in bars, etc. We need to keep guns off the streets. If doing so saves just one life, it will be worth it."

WE SAY: "Studies have shown blah blah blah" (FLAW: You have implied that if studies showed License-To-Carry laws equaled more heat-of-passion shootings, Right-To-Carry should be illegal.)

WE SHOULD SAY: "Although no state has experienced what you are describing, that's not important. What is important is our freedom. If saving lives is more important than the Constitution, why don't we throw out the Fifth Amendment? We have the technology to administer an annual truth serum session to the entire population. We'd catch the criminals and mistaken arrest would be a thing of the past. How does that sound?"

THEY SAY: "I don't see what the big deal is about a five day waiting period."

WE SAY: "It doesn't do any good, criminals don't wait five days, it's a waste of resources blah blah blah." (FLAW: You have implied that if waiting periods did reduce crime, they would be a good idea.)

WE SHOULD SAY: "Shall we apply your logic to the First Amendment along with the Second? How about a 24-hour cooling-off period with a government review board before the news is reported? Wouldn't that prevent lives from being ruined, e.g. Richard Jewell? And the fact that this law applies to people who already own a handgun tells me that it's not about crime prevention, it's about harassment. Personally, I want to live in a free society, not a 'safe' one with the government as chief nanny."

THEY SAY: "In 1776, citizens had muskets. No one ever envisioned these deadly AK-47s. I suppose you think we should all have Atomic bombs."

WE SAY: "Uh, well, uh..."

WE SHOULD SAY: "Actually, the Founders discussed this very issue--it's in the Federalist Papers. They wanted the citizens to have the same guns as were the issue weapons of soldiers in a modern infantry. Soldiers in 1776 each had muskets, but not the large field pieces that fired exploding shells. In 2005, soldiers are each individually issued M16s, M249s, etc. but not atomic bombs. Furthermore, according to your logic, the laws governing free speech and freedom of the press are only valid for newspapers whose presses are hand-operated and use fixed type. After all, no one in 1776 foresaw offset printing or electricity, let alone TV, satellite transmission, FAXes, and the Internet."

THEY SAY: "We require licenses on cars, but the powerful NRA screams bloody murder if anyone ever suggests licensing these dangerous weapons."

WE SAY: Nothing, usually, and just sit there looking dumb.

WE SHOULD SAY: "You know, driving is a luxury, whereas firearms ownership is a right secured by the Constitution. But let's put that aside for a moment. It's interesting you compared guns and vehicles. Here in the U.S. you can at any age go into any state and buy as many motorcycles, cars, or trucks of any size you want, and you don't need to do anything if you don't use them on public property. No license at all. If you do want to use them on public property, you can get a license at age 16. This license is good in all 50 states. No waiting periods, no background checks, nothing. If we treated guns like cars, a fourteen-year-old could go into any state and legally buy handguns, machine guns, cannons, whatever, cash and carry, and shoot them all with complete legality on private property. And at age 16 he could get a state license good anywhere in the country to shoot these guns on public property. Sounds great to me."

FINAL COMMENT, useful with most all arguments:

YOU SAY: "You know, I'm amazed at how little you care about your grandchildren. I would have thought they meant more to you than anything."

THEY SAY: "Hunh?"

YOU SAY: "Well, passing this proposal won't have a big immediate effect. I mean, in the next couple of years, neither George W. Bush nor Hillary Clinton is going to open up internment camps for Americans like Roosevelt did sixty-odd years ago. But think of your worst nightmare of a political leader. Isn't it possible that a person like that might be in control here some time in the next 30, 40, or 50 years, with 51% of the Congress and 51% of the Senate behind him or her? If that does happen, do you really want your grandchildren to have been stripped of their final guarantee of freedom? And do you really want them to have been stripped of it by you?

Let me know if any of these points make you more effective the next time a "gun control" advocate starts in on his favorite subject.

John Ross

I am a recent convert to the pro-gun, anti-gun-control side.So you may want to pay attention.

My background: no guns. My former opinion: guns aredangerous, they need to be controlled.

What changed re gun-control: I looked very carefully at guncontrol laws, both existing and proposed ones. I saw that, even if ALL theselaws were in effect, all the recent mass shootings would still have occurred.And, all the day-to-day criminal uses of guns would still have occurred.

What changed re guns: Yes, guns are dangerous, and manyaccidents and suicides happen because of carelessness and the easy availabilityof guns. But it is also true that the police are not everywhere at all times.Criminals have guns and there is not much unarmed people can do to defendthemselves. So I am learning about guns. I own a Glock 19 and plan to get goodwith it and get a CCL as well.

OK so far? You will hate the rest of this. I have toemphasize that my "conversion", as it were, took place with my ownthought processes. Most of you gun people were a huge IMPEDIMENT to my changeof mind. I have to say, most of you gun people are your own worst enemy. Icould write a book-length post on this, but I'll try to be brief, limit myselfto 10 points. Here we go.

HOW GUN PEOPLE DRIVE OTHERS AWAY FROM GUNS AND TOGUN-CONTROL:

1. "They are on the side of Hitler, Stalin, MaoTse-Tung, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, and every other leader of an oppressive,totalitarian regime." I'm well aware this is one of the favorite sayingsof most of you gun people. Such statements are horribly insulting to non-gunpeople. It causes them to think of most of you gun people as obnoxious and delusionaland it causes them to get away from you and your opinions as fast as they can.

2. 2. "THEY SAY: "We'd be better off if no one hadguns."”

Their concerns are the many accidents and suicides that happenbecause of carelessness and the easy availability of guns. You do not addressthis. Very bad move. I'm guessing you do not address this as it is a real issueand you do not have an answer. Trying to snow someone with BS is a hugeturn-off, drives people away.

3. "Better we should require every citizen to carry agun."
Translation: you are an extremist and they will want to get away from you assoon as they can.


4. "A gas chamber or electric chair..... “ la-la land,complete turn-off.

5. "When I need to protect myself and .... " Youthink you need to protect yourself with "a high-capacity, military-typerifle or handgun.... designed for conflict". NONE of them can even beginto imagine why you think you need such firepower to protect yourself - it makesyou appear paranoid and delusional in their eyes, and dangerous as well.

6. "THEY SAY: "If we pass this License-To-Carrylaw... "” and you respond "that's not important. What is important isour freedom. If saving lives is more important than the Constitution, why don'twe throw out the Fifth Amendment?" You completely ignore their very realfear, tell them it is not important, and then you try to change the subject tothe constitution when what they are worried about is the gun-fights at the OK corral. Again, moronic,driving people away.

7. THEY SAY: "I don't see what the big deal is about afive day waiting period." Your answer is totally moronic to non-gunpeople. "I want to live in a free society, not a 'safe' one with thegovernment as chief nanny." Well, they want to live in a SAFE society.Your values and their values are not the same - you need to address THEIR values,not your values.

8. licenses for car but not for weapons - you answer with agreat wad of BS apparently intended to confuse their concern.

9. "I'm amazed at how little you care about yourgrandchildren. I would have thought they meant more to you than anything"The biggest insult of them all. You SLAM their ears shut with this one. You guaranteethey think of you as rude and demented. They will run away from you ASAP.

10. "internment camps for Americans like Roosevelt didsixty-odd years ago.....your grandchildren to have been stripped of their finalguarantee of freedom" You just convinced them you are a stark-ravinglunatic.

SUMMARY OF WHAT YOU'RE DOING WRONG:

You are addressing YOUR concerns and YOUR values, notTHEIRS.

You are giving them NO ANSWERS to their concerns.

You are highly insulting and dismissive.

You are making outlandish claims that establish you as paranoidand delusional in their eyes.

You are too busy thinking how clever you are about statingyour own ideals.

You don’t even know what their concerns are.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have just done you gun people a big favor in pointing outhow to communicate with and convince non-gun people about guns. I have beenaround you gun people long enough to know that you will not like the fact thatI disagree with you, and so therefore you will attack me (like night followsday). A useful response would be to point out what you disagree with in mypost, and to learn from the rest of it.
Lisbeth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2013, 21:49   #48
NorthCarolinaLiberty
MentalDefective
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tax Funded Mental Institution
Posts: 5,144
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lisbeth View Post
I am a recent convert to the pro-gun, anti-gun-control side.So you may want to pay attention.

My background: no guns. My former opinion: guns aredangerous, they need to be controlled.

What changed re guns: Yes, guns are dangerous,...



I have just done you gun people a big favor in pointing outhow to communicate with and convince non-gun people about guns. I have beenaround you gun people long enough to know that you will not like the fact thatI disagree with you, and so therefore you will attack me (like night followsday). A useful response would be to point out what you disagree with in mypost, and to learn from the rest of it.


Your so-called big favor is the same old lame trolling that can't even come up with something original. Please tell us, o recent convert, how YOU would address these issues. Please tell us how your former opinion is that guns are dangerous, but that your conversion helped you see the light and determine that guns are still dangerous.
NorthCarolinaLiberty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2013, 13:01   #49
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lisbeth View Post
I am a recent convert to the pro-gun, anti-gun-control side.So you may want to pay attention.

My background: no guns. My former opinion: guns aredangerous, they need to be controlled.

What changed re gun-control: I looked very carefully at guncontrol laws, both existing and proposed ones. I saw that, even if ALL theselaws were in effect, all the recent mass shootings would still have occurred.And, all the day-to-day criminal uses of guns would still have occurred.

What changed re guns: Yes, guns are dangerous, and manyaccidents and suicides happen because of carelessness and the easy availabilityof guns. But it is also true that the police are not everywhere at all times.Criminals have guns and there is not much unarmed people can do to defendthemselves. So I am learning about guns. I own a Glock 19 and plan to get goodwith it and get a CCL as well.
OK so far? You will hate the rest of this.
You aren't going to like my response either.

First; we gun people try and try again to explain EXACTLY THAT to you anti gun people. You don't listen. Your emotions override reason. It's not until you anti gun people have your own epiphany causes by some personal tragedy that the facts sink in.

Second; guns are not dangerous. One can place a loaded firearm in a corner and it will sit there until hell freezes over and do no harm. Read my sig line. People, both careless and bad, do fare less damage with guns than automobiles and swimming pools yet MORONS dwell on how dangerous guns are. How dangerous guns are is emotional drivel easily disproved with fact but ants ignore the facts.

I'm glad you finally got your head out of your ass, but firearm owners had nothing to do with YOU putting it there or making you keep it there for how ever long it was there. Place blame where blame belongs... your own ignorance and emotion.
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.

Last edited by Jerry; 07-29-2013 at 22:46..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2013, 16:24   #50
sbhaven
Senior Member
 
sbhaven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Constitution State
Posts: 4,646
Lisbeth, at first I was going to post a lengthy response to your wall of text. But decided against it due to the massive amounts of projection you heap upon gun owners.

Rather I would encourage you to read Raging Against Self Defense: A psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality by Sarah Thompson, M.D. If you have an open mind as you read that article you'll see that gun owners are not the cause as to why you were anti gun. Your own emotions and fears were.
__________________
Currently hiding behind enemy lines in a Blue State.

Last edited by sbhaven; 07-29-2013 at 16:25..
sbhaven is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:44.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,069
351 Members
718 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42